NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming

[Arrian]

I am not a denyer by any stretch and I think this world has many huge environmental problems to tackle. I am just not certain that this focus on CO2 to yhr aslmost exclusion of all else is warranted. It would be nioce to see something more done about landfills, sulfur emissions, dirty coal, air quality, water quality.

Why the possibility of a sea rise in 50 years gets all the attention while the FACT that in many cities the air is pretty much unfit to breathe, frankly boggles my mind

Both are serious issues, IMO.

We've got to stop and ask ourselves - how much clean air do we really need? - Lee Iacocca

-Arrian

[Slade Wilson]

Im just saying that its probably a bit of an overreaction\hysteria


If global warming is a natural proccess we may as well reverse the rotation of the earth as stop it. Im more concerned about direct pollution myself. Our planet is being poisoned.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
Global Warmers are constantly trying to railroad the issue and anyone that doesn't comply is treated like they are denying something that has been proven. Its alot of mass hysteria, irregardless of whether global warming is real or not and if its a problem

There is no debate in the scientific community that GW is human caused, the only debate is the amount of warming. The GW "debate" is about as real as the Evolution-Creation "debate." There was a study done that randomly picked 10% of the peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject for the last few years; none of the papers, not one, attacked global warming. The whole "controversy" is the result of a disinformation campaign by Big Oil and Big Coal to fool the public. The Denialists are using the same tactics of selective skepticism and outright lying that the tobacco companies used when they tried to convince people that there were no health risks from smoking.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Odin


There is no debate in the scientific community that GW is human caused, the only debate is the amount of warming. The GW "debate" is about as real as the Evolution-Creation "debate." There was a study done that randomly picked 10% of the peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject for the last few years; none of the papers, not one, attacked global warming. The whole "controversy" is the result of a disinformation campaign by Big Oil and Big Coal to fool the public. The Denialists are using the same tactics of selective skepticism and outright lying that the tobacco companies used when they tried to convince people that there were no health risks from smoking.

One small clique of climate scientists is trying to shut down debate on this issue and hide all the problems with dodgy data, poor proxies, and model mis-specification. Odin is one of their fools.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Doddler




One small clique of climate scientists is trying to shut down debate on this issue and hide all the problems with dodgy data, poor proxies, and model mis-specification. Odin is one of their fools.

I must be a fool for thinking smoking causes cancer then too, eh?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Odin


I must be a fool for thinking smoking causes cancer then too, eh?

Good example-- Smoking does cause cancer but cancer occurrs absent smoking. I haven't seen the data but I'd bet that smoking does not even cause the majority of cancers.

WE also have a hell of a lot more reliable data on cancer occurences in smokers versus non-smokers (either or makes for nice statistical data across millions of subjects) versus climate data that is trying to understand a process of warming and cooling that has been going on for millions of years in a single subject (earth).

I do not deny human effects. I simply wonder if we have a sweet clue what our impacts are versus those that would occurr anyway. Since I don't believe we have a really good handle on what would happen anyway, I really doubt it

[Odin]

Originally posted by Flubber I do not deny human effects. I simply wonder if we have a sweet clue what our impacts are versus those that would occurr anyway. Since I don't believe we have a really good handle on what would happen anyway, I really doubt it

Contrary to what the denialists say, our knowledge of Earth's climate variability is actually pretty good.

[Berzerker]

we need more CO2 in the atmosphere so the methane rich tundra will thaw and release all that gas to make us even warmer

the ice age is coming...THE ICE AGE IS COMING

[Berzerker]

Contrary to what the denialists say, our knowledge of Earth's climate variability is actually pretty good.

New York harbor froze over ~200 years ago and climate change was radical and harsh during the mini ice age - good times indeed!

[Jon Miller]

I also think that there are much worse issues facing us environmentally then global warming. Many people seem to think that if we can fix that, we will be 'saved'.

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin


Contrary to what the denialists say, our knowledge of Earth's climate variability is actually pretty good.

It must be an interesting kind of mushrooms you are eating.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber


Good example-- Smoking does cause cancer but cancer occurrs absent smoking. I haven't seen the data but I'd bet that smoking does not even cause the majority of cancers.

WE also have a hell of a lot more reliable data on cancer occurences in smokers versus non-smokers (either or makes for nice statistical data across millions of subjects) versus climate data that is trying to understand a process of warming and cooling that has been going on for millions of years in a single subject (earth).

Maybe we do now. When I was 13, it was only a few years after the first surgeon generals report, and Im not sure the science was as good. Fortunately I decided not to start smoking, rather than wait till perfect data was available.

How much data do we have that establishing that putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is a GOOD idea? Should we have NOT started the industrial revolution till more data was in. You go with the best data you have. Right now the best data and modeling says that the current rate we are putting GHG into the atmosphere will lead to the range of temp changes i quoted above. Ogie thinks thats still a wide range. Call it what you will. I think its a wide enough range to consider action.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I also think that there are much worse issues facing us environmentally then global warming. Many people seem to think that if we can fix that, we will be 'saved'.

JM

At least here in the developed world, Im hard put to name something much worse than global warming is LIKELY (not certain) to be, if GHG emissions continue unchecked.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Flubber
Good example-- Smoking does cause cancer but cancer occurrs absent smoking. I haven't seen the data but I'd bet that smoking does not even cause the majority of cancers.

I'll be willing to bet that it does but regardless of that, if smoking does cause cancer then it IS a problem. Your logic is akin to saying that war causes death but death occurrs absent war, and since most deaths are not caused by war, then war really isn't that big a deal.

That just seems like a convenient minimization of a serious issue.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



At least here in the developed world, Im hard put to name something much worse than global warming is LIKELY (not certain) to be, if GHG emissions continue unchecked.

Easy.

Water pollution and misuse.

JM